On Becoming a Domestic and Laboratory Goddess

Everything's always a struggle, ain't it my friend?

Posted by: PalMD | February 16, 2009 8:23 PM

Another brave and important post, Isis. I guess I'm even more curious to know what you think about religious dogma where it interfaces with the science issues of the day. For example, stem cell research, and abortion -- the question of when life begins and when we're supposed to respect it at all costs?

Posted by: Anne | February 16, 2009 8:44 PM

jrshipley: Also, discrimination in science is the result of individual bigots not institutional doctrine. Your comparison of the two is superficial.

I'd like to follow up on this. Dr. Isis, you seem to be comparing "Catholic Church" to "Science". Wouldn't it be more appropriate to compare to, say, the American Geophysical Union, or the National Academy of Sciences?

I suspect this won't change your answer, but it does change the meaning. In the same way that quitting NAS in protest over some official policy isn't the same as quitting "science", leaving the catholic church shouldn't be conflated with ditching your religious beliefs.

-kevin

Posted by: Kevin | February 16, 2009 9:11 PM

I wish you well, especially in any struggles against discrimination, but if I read the same stuff from someone advocating that (for example) reiki should be taken seriously, I'd be unimpressed. This seems to be a plea for special respect for faith-based... faith-based what? Fill in your own term.

I honestly can't imagine living inside a head which retains an "on" and "off" switch so it applies scientific principles in the laboratory but then hangs the Cap of Rationality on the hat peg when it's time for faith.

Here's an alternative version of your Q&A for a notional homeopath:

Q: How committed to homeopathy are you?

A: Pretty committed. That said, I am not a homeopath merely because that was the first alternative therapy I encountered. I didn't officially join the Society of Homeopaths until I was an adult after meandering through reflexology, crystal therapy, acupuncture and tong ren and considering them.

Q: Do you actually believe that a dilute remedy is more potent than one containing active substance?

A: Yes

Q: Even when it doesn't contain a single molecule of the remedy?

A: I have never analysed a remedy in a chemical laboaratory, so I have no firsthand evidence of the chemical properties, but I will say "yes."

Q: Do you actually believe in the effectiveness of the cures?

A: Yes

Q: How exactly would one person's anecdotes trump the clear evidence of medical trials?

A: This is not an easy question to answer. Homeopaths and laypeople have pondered this question for decades. In the meantime, homeopathic doctrine is fixed and I suppose what's important is simply that I believe it.

Would you go out and buy a 30C remedy on the basis of that? Why is your special pleading more worthy than my concocted nonsense?

Posted by: Sam C | February 16, 2009 9:48 PM

As a practicing Christian (not Catholic) in a scientific profession I appreciate your openness. I struggle with transubstantiation and the apostolic succession, but I don't have any trouble affirming miracles, the virgin birth, or the resurrection. I also don't have any trouble with the scientific method, evolution, or need for evidence. And yet I have a hard time explaining why and how to nonbelievers. It's a mystery! and I struggle with feeling comfortable about being open about my faith (and not feeling looked down upon as unscientific).

As an aside, if you ever listen to thinking of faith on NPR they've had an interesting series these last 3 weeks on the intersection of Darwin's faith and his science. You might enjoy them.

Posted by: hypatia cade | February 16, 2009 10:47 PM

I've been intrigued by the comments that place science and religion at odds as distinct processes. I'm not a pure scientist but spent part of a former life in a math department. I've found in my academic life that much of what I/we do as scholars (including scientists) is at some level a leap of faith into the unknown, chipping away at big questions. Religion, too, is a leap of faith to explain the unknown - just a different lens. I don't know anyone who gets published in the Journal of Stuff We Already Knew. And, any good researcher attempting to investigate interesting questions usually ends up with more questions than answers at the end of the project. I see my faith that way as well - a constant quest for answers resulting in more questions and things to investigate. The day I'm out of questions is the day I should probably retire.

If you still feel like being a priest, the Episcopal Church happily receives a lot of ex-Catholics in our clergy ranks. :)

Posted by: EpiscopalianAcademic | February 16, 2009 11:20 PM

EpiscopalianAcademic, your allegory is fallacious. Whereas the sciences answer questions in an empirical, reproducible and natural manner (thereby, you know, answering them), with the attendant expanse of knowledge that those answers entail, "faith" doesn't actually answer any questions, but rather lets people believe they are getting answers to unanswerable questions.

They are wholly different.

Posted by: Damien | February 16, 2009 11:29 PM

...

... and I was intrigued by a couple of the questions in the relatively sparse comments section.

...smalllol...

Yeah, it can be difficult to get people to just 'sack up' to ask their questions and 'speak their piece'.

*snort*

...tom...
.

Posted by: ...tom... | February 17, 2009 12:52 AM

Oh phew! You exist! Thank hades, I've had such a time with some people on the topic of 'yes, one can believe in god and be a scientist'.

You might be interested in my recording of what Dr Karl Kruszelnicki, the author and science commentator on Australian radio and television. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr_Karl_Kruszelnicki) had to say about science and faith co-existing. He was the first person who discussed the science/faith issue with me and what he has observed. http://skepticzone.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=405151#

Posted by: Podblack | February 17, 2009 3:42 AM

Oh, I should mention the interview I did on 'The Deist Skeptic':
http://podblack.com/?p=1167

Posted by: Podblack | February 17, 2009 3:57 AM

I was raised in a catholic environment myself and I am well versed in standard catholic apologetics in regards the overlap between science and religion. I think Isis has firmly answered the feminist aspect of the previous round of questions - I quite agree that pushing for change from the inside is a perfectly reasonable approach.
The problems I have with catholicism are of a much more fundamental nature.
There really doesn't appear to be any stronger evidence for the basis of christianity (any branch of it) than many 'dead' religions around the world or indeed of living religions like islam, hinduism, mormonism or scientology.
All of these faiths sincerely suggest that all others are wrong - in many cases suggesting that this incorrectness is going to send the members of that religion to a fiery non-end!
Despite this there is very little attempt to save members of the other religions. It seems safer for the major religions to police their own patches rather than save the billions on the other patches. Why is that? If I sincerely believed I could do something to save billions of people I would certainly try to do it, wouldn't you? As an analogy is it not comparable to a scientist who advocates vaccination and clean water for those in the developing world who don't presently have it?
OK, so that's one objection to the idea of a specific faith, so how about faith in general?
I work as a molecular biologist researching into the cell death process in cancer.
As are most cell biologists I am pretty familiar with the various cell death processes - apoptosis, autophagy and necrosis. All of these will be involved to a certain extent when a body dies.
After two days in a hot climate (such as Judea in 33 AD) a dead body will have undergone many changes. Probably not a single cell will still be alive and the dead cells will have fragmented with cell membranes becoming irreversibly breached, mitochondrias leaking and the DNA and chromatin breaking into small pieces through the action of cellular proteases and DNAses. While a body looks superficially the same after such a period of time, on a cellular level its more akin to having been put through a blender and then microwaved.
The idea that ressurection happens at this point suggests that all of these processes will be undone in an instant.
Science has no way of rescuing even a single cell at present that has undergone such a process but we are to presume that every one of the trillions of cells in Jesus were, without the aid of all the kings horses and all the kings men, put back together again.
OK, so what if it did happen.
What does that mean?
I suppose it means that a miracle occurred.
So the laws of thermodynamics were suspended by God in order to do this - much as he suspended the laws to allow a female virgin to have a male child.
As a research scientist the idea that the laws of thermodynamics occasionally fail is not a simple matter.
I cannot use this notion in any aspect of my work. The famous cartoon "I think you should be more explicit about the 'and then a miracle occurred' part" is important because it points to a real problems that is ignored by many theists who work in science. If you accept that total body cell necrosis can be conditionally reversed in one instance then what is the basis for you rejecting a paper which suggests that a particular result occurs through the intervention of a miracle from God.
I remember Francis Collins being asked this point about experiments with Ecoli (how can you say that a particular result isnt God intervening rather than a naturalistic explanation if you readily admit that God DOES intervene to suspend the laws of nature?)
Collins had no answer to this point other than to suggest that God wouldnt intervene just for bacteria (yet doesnt evolution suggest that there is no chain of being, that the Ecoli is just as much evolved as we are?)
Why wouldn't God intervene to save an Ecoli on my agar plate?
As for the virgin birth, it amazes me that perfectly reasonable explanations exist ('virgin' is a mistranslation - the correct term should be 'young woman') that do not involve the laws of physics flying out the window yet religious people (and scientists at that!) readily throw these out the window to accept a 2000 year old dogma.
Lets all thank God for cognitive dissonance.
Anyway I'll end on a conciliatory note to say I can actually understand why someone might accept faith in opposition to empiricism. It is a way of avoiding some nasty thoughts . that you may never see your loved ones again after death, that evil acts often go unpunished and good people amy never get their deserved rewards. These are not nice thoughts but religion provides a convenient answer to each.

Posted by: Sigmund | February 17, 2009 6:02 AM

And if may ask another question:

What is a 'soul'? Do only humans possess them, and if so, when during the evolution of our species did souls appear? Finally, when and how are new souls made?

thanks again.

Posted by: MH | February 17, 2009 6:20 AM

Dr. Isis--

As one of the handful of commenters on the previous thread, I thank you for answering my questions here. They were not specifically addressed, so I humbly stand for correction if any of my conclusions are not what you meant.

First, and most importantly, I do not mean any of what I say to imply that your beliefs disqualify you (or anyone) from doing good science. That is not the issue; of course believers can do good science. My question was whether your science informed the rest of your life the way your belief does--or, more specifically, the extent to which each was applied to the other. Your answer tells me that science is not applied to your faith. Not surprising, of course; unless your scientific expertise was in a relatively few areas of experimental psychology, it would not be a natural fit.

Secondly and parenthetically, I must take issue, just a bit, with your description of the institutionalized nature of sexist practices in science. The rules are discriminatory against active parents; it is our greater society that translates this burden to mothers. I chose to be a stay-at-home dad (teaching at the Uni in the evenings), because I enjoyed it and was good at it, and my wife did not and was not (and readily said so). As a result, I took the "mommy track", and my career has suffered greatly; the discrimination is against any active parent, not just mothers. The CC's institutionalized sexism is part of its own rules, independently of whether it is a reflection of the greater society.

Posted by: Anon | February 17, 2009 8:20 AM

First, as a gal raised in a Catholic family of scientists, I think the science/faith thing is pretty much a non-issue, for the reasons you and others have outlined during this discussion. But, I think this discussion is setting up a false dichotomy between the sexism that exists in science and that in the Catholic church. It's the same sexism, with the same root. The idea that a curious woman led to the downfall of humanity is the result of religion. It's an idea that's so pervasive in western culture that even the "rational" atheists sometimes get tripped up by it.

If Eve hadn't tasted from the tree of knowledge, there'd be no need for Jesus in the first place. The sexism in science is just an extension of sexism in greater society, which exists because it's one of the founding principles in Christianity, even if it's only taken allegorically.

Posted by: zinjanthropus | February 17, 2009 10:03 AM

It's not all about the existence of Jesus or how he was born.

I'd beg to differ there. Not all religions share anything in common and with particular religions it very much is about the specifics of belief. If you don't believe in the existence then you don't follow the religion called Christianity - the clue's in the name.

You may claim it as your religion and say you just believe in the teachings but not the actual story. However then you're recognising the teachings as good over and above the existence of any gods. You're just making the same moral decisions as an atheist via your own powers of judgement and reason so religion doesn't come into it.

Religion very much is the specifics. Without the miracles, angels, demons, fiery pits of hell, etc. you're just left with morality which has no necessary connection to religion whatsoever.

Posted by: Cannonball Jones | February 17, 2009 10:29 AM

Zinjanthropus, you write that 'The idea that a curious woman led to the downfall of humanity is the result of religion. It's an idea that's so pervasive in western culture that even the "rational" atheists sometimes get tripped up by it.'

I'm sorry, I really don't follow what you're saying here. Can you provide an example of an atheist getting "tripped up by it"?

What of the sexism in cultures that don't have the Jewish creation myth? E.g. multiple Asian cultures, various island cultures, the Australian aborigines, the followers of Hinduism, etc.?

I'd say that the Eve myth was an expression of sexism, not a cause thereof.

Posted by: Ray Ingles | February 17, 2009 11:13 AM

But, at the end of the day, the feminist question remains the same for the church and science -- is it more appropriate when one feels they are dealing with disparity (but still believes in the global principles) to walk away from the organization and protest or stay and try to affect as much change as you can?

Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | February 17, 2009 11:18 AM

@Tulse, #28--
When did I claim that they must necessarily do good science? Unless you are of the opinion that one's beliefs, rather than one's methodology, define "good science", your statement is utterly irrelevant. I have, for example, a couple of books on parapsychology on my shelf. One, clearly written by a believer, is a compendium of "well, this set of experiments showed promising results, but was methodologically unsound" and "this was a good experiment, which unfortunately did not show the hoped-for effect", and the like. It is an accurate portrayal of a line of research in which one's beliefs may be the inspiration for experiment, but the results of which may still be reliable, accurately reported, and utterly unsupportive of the inspiring belief system.

In contrast, Rene Blondlott was a respected mainstream physicist, but his methodology was inadequate, and his "discovery" of N-Rays serves as a lesson in the importance of sound methodology, independent of belief system.

Unless you have evidence that Dr. Isis's belief system prevents her from using sound methodology, you are without a point. No one disputes that bad science may be done by believers; the question is whether it must be. In my opinion, religious or woo belief adds nothing to scientific inquiry; I am certainly not advocating for it. But neither does it necessarily detract from scientific inquiry; that will depend on whether one's religious beliefs actually translate to poor experimental methodology. In some cases, they clearly do. I would suspect, simply from the raw numbers of believers in our culture, that the vast majority of scientists who hold religious belief are indistinguishable from the scientists who do not. If you can demonstrate that you can reliably discriminate among journal articles written by believers and non-believers in mainstream science journals, I will gladly acknowledge my mistake.

Posted by: Anon | February 17, 2009 11:52 AM

When did I claim that they must necessarily do good science?

You didn't, but you also didn't specify what the criteria for good science are. Presumably you agree that a YEC can't do good geology because of their religious commitments. But surely that criterion would apply to any scientist with any supernatural commitment that involves their area of study.

Unless you have evidence that Dr. Isis's belief system prevents her from using sound methodology, you are without a point.

Isis seems to accept that female Homo sapiens who have never mated can nonetheless bear male children. If she were presented with a modern claim of the same situation by the Catholic Church, do you trust that her beliefs would not cloud her scientific judgement? If someone claimed that a particular skeleton recovered from a cave in Israel were actually that of a crucified Jesus of Nazareth, do you trust that her beliefs would not affect her approach to the issue? Would you want Isis on a team from the Church assessing a claim of a saint's miracle?

Religious scientists can indeed do good science, but only in domains where there religious beliefs are not involved in their area of study. In other words, religious scientists are handicapped in terms of what areas they can study scientifically. That seems, at the very least, to violate the spirit of science.

Posted by: Tulse | February 17, 2009 12:11 PM

Dr. Isis,
I'm curious to know whether you think your belief in the doctrines of your church is the same sort of thing as belief in everyday things or belief in the soundness of a hypothesis in science.

If we say "I believe my keys are in my jacket" or "I believe that human activity is a major factor in climate change" those beliefs are never absolute. They have attached to them (probably informally) some idea of how much doubt we have in them - a probability of us being wrong. New information will always shift those probabilities, occasionally pushing out level of certainty below 50% so that we simply don't believe the claim any more (not seeing the keys when you first look in the kitchen, say).

Now I think scientists tend to internalise a relatively formal version of this sort of view of belief because they have to study probability and such. OTOH people usually talk about religious beliefs in categorical terms and will say that as far as they are concerned there is no chance that God doesn't exist (for example).

I am curious whether you carry your scientist's habits into religion: whether you would be happy giving an estimate of the probability that you and church are both wrong on specific point of dogma, say.

Posted by: Matt Heath | February 17, 2009 12:49 PM

Thank you, Sigmund, for fleshing out my point. Someone who believes that miracles occur, but writes for journals under the constraints of science, is contributing to the progress of science. Is a functional and productive member of the scientific community. Tulse is forced to present a hypothetical situation, rather than evidence, to suggest that Dr. Isis could potentially be clouded in her scientific judgment. Well, hypotheticals are cheap, so we could also hypothetically give an example of Dr. Isis being presented with those situations and, because of the importance of the stakes, being even more careful to cross every t, dot every i, ensure adequate controls and blinding, simply because she has more riding on an accurate outcome than a disinterested party. Aren't hypotheticals fun?

Religious scientists are handicapped only to the extent that their beliefs actually affect their methodology. Granted, these effects can be subtle, and often it is the "hard scientists" who are least prepared to control for these effects (cf the physicists Targ & Puthoff, easily duped by Uri Geller; why should they be prepared? Their subjects don't often lie to them!) But--for instance--expectancy effects have been demonstrated by adequately controlled experiments in parapsychology! The sheep-goat effect is well known, and is a powerful example goading researchers to adequately blind the participants and researchers, in order to separate effect from artifact. (When this is done, the book I mentioned previously reports, the effect tends to vanish.)

It is the thoroughness of the methodology that matters, not the belief system of the experimenter. I gladly grant that the two may at times be related--in the case of YEC, strongly related! But there is no reflexive connection between belief and bad methodology, and dismissing the work of believers on no more grounds than that they are believers is simply foolish. "Wrong about X" does not imply "wrong about everything." We already have a peer-review process, both before and after publication; judge the work on its merits, not on the beliefs of the author.

Posted by: Anon | February 17, 2009 1:06 PM

Correction:

That's a bit disingenuous. You know that it's as impossible to test for the [non-] existence of God (or Isis, or any other god), just as it is impossible to test for the [non-] existence of the invisible pink unicorn. That isn't a reason to believe in their existence.

Posted by: MH | February 17, 2009 1:59 PM

Sure, the Church says simply, "no women priests" but universities institutionalize their discrimination more subtley -- look at the demands placed upon a woman of reproductive age trying to acheive tenure and the rules at some universities about, for example, stopping the tenure clock to take maternity leave.

I am in favor of the policy changes you mention, but I fail to see how they constitute anything close to the doctrinal sexism of the Catholic Church. The demands on anyone trying to achieve tenure are tremendous and nobody gets special time off to pursue other interests. For example, if you want to go on tour with a rock band they won't stop the clock. People have lots of different side interests, from being a stay-at-home mother (or father) to becoming a rock star. We sacrifice some of our interests to pursue a career in academia. It's rather contentious to declare that a lack of special exceptions for the specific interest of motherhood constitutes sexism anything at all like the total subordination of women in the Catholic Church hierarchy. (In fact, I suspect my tendency to want to treat motherhood as special, the reason I tend to agree with the policies you recommend on stopping the tenure clock, reflects some ingrained cultural attitudes about gender roles that might in other contexts be labeled sexist).

BTW, your "working to change from the inside" line is typical of self-deceived practicing Catholics who have to tell themselves something when confronting the evidence of rampant sexism and bigotry in the Church. However, a search (a quick search--so correct me if I am mistaken) of your blog reveals several posts on sexism in academia and none on sexism in the Church, even though the Church is by any measure far worse. I, of course, know nothing of your private life, but your public persona does not seem to bear out the "working to change" line. Why, for example, did you not mention the recent controversy over that Holocaust denying priest or Pope Benedict's recent statements in opposition to UN condemnation of the jailing and execution of homosexuals under religious law?

The Catholic Church is an institution whose history includes the attempted ethnic cleansing of Spain, the burning of "heretics", and the banning of books. To this day it remains secretive, authoritarian, sexist and bigoted. Its current leadership shows no inclination toward liberalization and in fact seems to be working to roll back as much of Vatican II as possible. The comparison you've attempted of this institution with the public university system strikes me as rather outlandish. It does not seem to me that "yes of course that's all bad stuff, but I really like the idea of drinking the blood and eating the flesh of a crucified mangod" is an adequate apologetic for your tacit approval by voluntary association with Catholicism.

(BTW, I enjoy reading your blog and hope I'm coming off as only a little bit of a jerk in trying to challenge you a bit on this. I'll let you get the last word if you care to respond.)

Posted by: jrshiple | February 17, 2009 2:13 PM

Dear Dr. Isis,

I love your blog, your advice, your constant advocating for women in science. I don't really get your shoes, but that I can easily overlook.

However, I cringe every time you discuss religion. Basically, because of the reasoning given by Sam C. I do not understand how someone so committed to science can actually suspend science and reason and believe in things like virgin birth. Accept them as part of your religion, maybe, with the understanding that it is in fact the meaning behind it that is important. But truly believe it? I just cannot fathom how that can be so.

Further, I can only see the logic in this statement: "Also, discrimination in science is the result of individual bigots not institutional doctrine. Your comparison of the two is superficial."

Science does not, in its definition, discriminate against women as Catholicism does. I think your example in fact illustrates this. When faced with the biological restraints that only women can be pregnant/give birth/nurse etc, scientists came up with the solution of allowing stoppage of the tenure clock. When that was seen to be used by some to discriminate, many institutions made tenure stoppage mandatory for all faculty, male and female, who had a child enter the family. I only see how your example supports how Science and Catholicism are different, not the same.

I want to clarify, though. I am not attacking your religion, your right to believe as you wish, or your ability to do great science at the same time. I am earnestly curious as to how this dichotomy can exist within one person. Thanks for starting this interesting discussion and, please, keep the posts coming!

Sincerely,
Katie

Posted by: Katie | February 17, 2009 2:37 PM

Isis, "we continue with discussion of how science and faith cannot intersect because faith cannot be tested. I have had experiences that have led me to my particular faith." That's what I mean at #36, you are not serious. Are you telling us that the only or best by far explanations for those experiences is god's existence? Or that god interacted with your reality somehow but that still can not be tested?
Cheers,

Posted by: Im curious | February 17, 2009 3:09 PM

I did not weigh in on the last time because I felt that the hue and cry were ridiculous and disrespectful. And now this is happening again.

Allow me to state this bluntly:

It is neither your, nor Science's, business what Dr. Isis believes metaphysically so long as those beliefs to not cloud her empirical data.

If you believe that Dr. Isis' Catholicism is inextricable from her science and that she cannot be a good scientist because of her beliefs, then I posit that you are ignorant. Conflating her faith with the atrocious logic of the intelligent design fundamentalists is dishonest. Dr. Isis is not proselytizing Teh Sinner Scientists here. Her faith does not affect you in any way and if her faith makes you feel insecure about your science, then perhaps it is time to rigorously review your methodology. So enough already. Attacking her rationality and faith is disgusting and as a scientific audience you should know better. James Watson and Charles Darwin were racist pricks, but that didn't affect their new science or make it any less revolutionary. Their personal beliefs didn't affect their public science (well, not what he's remembered for, at least in the case of Darwin; and Dr. Isis: I am sorry to have such a crappy comparison here, no offense is meant and I am not lumping you into the same boat).

Personally, I don't believe similarly as Dr. Isis, but I will not stand idly by and watch her get unfairly stomped on. And lest I be accused of trying to stifle discussion by speaking up:
Yes, we can have a discussion about faith, but it ain't affecting you or your science personally so maybe you should consider dialing back the blood pressure and peeling your eyebrows off the ceiling. Remember to speak with your mouth instead of your asshole.

Posted by: Toaster | February 17, 2009 3:13 PM

I love the Vicar of Dibley (Figure 1). So funny.

Posted by: Female Engineering Professor | February 17, 2009 3:30 PM

Toaster:

Personally, I don't believe similarly as Dr. Isis, but I will not stand idly by and watch her get unfairly stomped on. And lest I be accused of trying to stifle discussion by speaking up:
Yes, we can have a discussion about faith, but it ain't affecting you or your science personally so maybe you should consider dialing back the blood pressure and peeling your eyebrows off the ceiling. Remember to speak with your mouth instead of your asshole.

I don't see anyone stomping on Dr. Isis. I see a lot of people asking interesting questions about science and religion.

If Dr.Isis is offended by any of the questions, she can do one of two things: focus on the perceived offence at the expense of the other comments, or focus on the polite questions and ignore the ones she deems offensive.

Only one of those options will stifle discussion, the other will encourage it.

Posted by: MH | February 17, 2009 3:35 PM

Indeed not. Any sufficiently ineffable deity is completely unfalsifiable.

I should have tried to explain further. Imagine hearing a noise outside. The first thing you think of is that it is a prowler. You listen more carefully and you realise the sound is a mournful "twit - twoo". Instead of concluding that it is an owl, you try and convince yourself that it is a prowler who is doing a very good imitation of an owl.

(auch, my metaphors are lousy when I'm tired)

Posted by: MH | February 17, 2009 3:55 PM

Dr. Isis,

I had to chime in and say that I appreciate seeing a reasonable, "quiet" discussion about science and religion here at Scienceblogs. While I am of the non-theist persuasion, myself, I don't mind engaging in discussion with someone who understands where people on my side are coming from. People tend to be harsh in these discussions because they are often speaking different languages, and one eventually defaults to snark and condescension when dealing with people who wantonly disregard contrary evidence, or simply condemn you to hell over and over.

You, Dr. Isis, at least understand the nature of the argument. There is, apparently, still some disagreement on the method of attacking the problem, but that's why the discussion is ongoing. I hang around PZ's, and I live deep in the Bible Belt, so I generally have some idea when theists are being caricatured -- and, sadly, when they aren't. It is tiring. Lots of folks like me feel surrounded by people who are, by some indicators, barking mad. The thoughtful theists aren't loud enough to hear in the cacophony. I understand that you think the best way to change your institution is from the inside (incidentally, that's how I used to feel about the Republican Party), and I applaud your efforts, both in the church and in the establishments of science.

Even with those efforts, however, some of it fails to make sense to someone like me. I'm not saying your arguments don't make sense; I'm saying that my frame of reference doesn't include things you take for granted. I've never really been an "insider" when it came to religion. It rarely came up at home, and I remember the first time I openly declared that there was no god as occuring in a school hallway when I was nine. I've attended more than a few churches, across a slew of denominations, and I've independently studied religions, ancient and modern, out of general interest for decades now. I'm no expert, but I'd call myself a "dedicated amateur", and I'd say the same about chemistry, astronomy, biology, the history of the Marvel comics universe, and the band Aerosmith. I'm not coming at theology blind to history, context, and argument.

Given that, I just don't understand. I've never run into a doctrine or dogma that, once you get beyond an exhortation to "be excellent to each other", makes any stinkin' sense. The rules are arbitrary, varied, and occasionally self-contradicting. I don't understand how one can "rationally" choose, for sake of example, Catholicism over Hinduism. Or, for that matter, Greek Orthodoxy. Or any one flavor of Christianity over another. From the outside (at least my outside), the evidence looks equivalent. None of it makes sense to me. Supposing that religion and gods are supposed to be forces acting to benefit mankind, why are the rules often at odds to that purpose?

It's hard to say this in some of the other arenas of disussion. Heck, it's hard to get in a word edgewise when the words start flying. Maybe you can shine some light on it for me, so that I can understand your position better. That's most of what I want, anyway. If I'm not learning, even about the dedicated opposition, I'm not living.

Posted by: Ranson | February 17, 2009 4:21 PM

Someone who believes that miracles occur, but writes for journals under the constraints of science, is contributing to the progress of science.

I don't think anyone, including me, has denied this. The point is that religious individuals cannot act "under the constraints of science" in all domains -- to be true to their religious beliefs, they must abrogate science in some instances. Those instances will generally not be in the domains they publish, simply because they couldn't get published if they did indeed let their beliefs impact their science. In other words, they are handicapped by their religious beliefs as to what parts of the world they can investigate scientifically. That makes religion detrimental to science.

So yes, to answer your original question, believers can indeed do good science, but only to the extent that they remove their beliefs from the scientific process. In other words, religion and science are incompatible, but individual scientists can compartmentalize and thus deal psychologically with this inconsistency in their lives. (How else can one explain a physiologist who believes that an unmated female Homo sapien gave birth to a male offspring?)

Posted by: Tulse | February 17, 2009 4:44 PM

Following on Tulse's comment #64, could some of the theist friends present, and Isis in particular, respond to this question: isn't is true that religious belief puts limits to what parts of the world/reality they can investigate scientifically? Please, explain.

Posted by: Im curious | February 17, 2009 5:10 PM

It takes as much faith to believe in NOTHING as Somthing

It takes as much faith to believe in the absence of the moon as it does the presence of Russell's teapot. It all comes down to evidence. It doesn't take much faith to believe in the absence of gods, because there is no evidence for any. Unless you'd like to provide some?

Posted by: MH | February 17, 2009 5:33 PM

Ranson said... I believe in the amazing complexity of the universe. I believe that I'm alive, and it's my duty to use the resources available to me in my relatively comfortable (when compared to most of the world) to make other people's lives better. I believe in my children, and that my son is finally getting the whole idea of this "school" thing. I believe in the entire complex, amazing, interesting, and fulfilling world around me.

Interesting, I believe in these same things, too.

You also said...I also have pretty good evidence that it could have gotten this way all on its own; I don't need to posit an outside actor to account for these endless forms most beautiful, be they animal, mineral, or astronomical.

Okay, that's how you see it. But why do scientists, who share as much excitement and awe about our universe AND who beleive in a Diety who made it all happen made to seem less credible as scientists and objective universe observers simply because we beleive in Something.

Darwin, himself was a man of faith. I object to this notion that being scientific 'cleanses us' of spiritual connection and growth and frankly it is this atheistic evangelism that makes alot of the general public shy away from understanding science as a way of knowing. And there is no conflict in understanding out world from multiple perspectives. I understand that organism evolve and I believe in a God who created them all.

Isis isn't trying to convert any spiritually neutral scientists to faith, but I see many of you trying to get her to see the woe of her ways....Sounds alot like the script of missionaries in the bush..

Posted by: DNLee | February 17, 2009 6:43 PM

"...frankly it is this atheistic evangelism that makes alot of the general public shy away from understanding science as a way of knowing."

Atheistic evangelism? There is a reason why the majority of scientists are also atheists - they understand science. They simply went to school and studied and now understand. If this is evangelism, so be it. The public shy away from understanding science not because of atheism, but because it does not have the basics necessary to understand science. The public is ignorant and religion does not requires understanding, only believing in the unbelievaeble.

Posted by: S. Rivlin | February 17, 2009 6:59 PM

DNLee, No one has accused Isis of converting anyone to her faith and I don't see anyone here "trying to get her to see the woe of her ways. I see a bunch of intellectually curious individuals asking questions from someone who has bravely opened her belief to scrutiny. Asking someone to explain their point of view isn't trying to get them to change their mind, it is acquiring information. It is trying to understand another persons point of view, even if it is completely different from our own.

But why do scientists, who share as much excitement and awe about our universe AND who beleive in a Diety who made it all happen made to seem less credible as scientists and objective universe observers simply because we beleive in Something.

They seem less credible because they have provided as much evidence for their beliefs as practitioners of homeopathy have of theirs. Given the nature of the audience of these ScienceBlogs, evidence is quite a natural thing to ask for when presented with a hypothesis.

Posted by: CyberLizard | February 17, 2009 7:02 PM

"I don't understand how someone can choose which god or entity to believe in. And no-one will explain it to me."

More than 99% of religious people do not choose which god or entity to believe in, they simply have no choice; they are inculcated into believing in the god their parents believe in.

Posted by: S. Rivlin | February 17, 2009 7:07 PM

Atheistic Evangelism???? HUH??

Evangelism is the Christian practice of proselytisation. The word evangelist comes from the Koine Greek word εὐαγγέλιον (transliterated as "euangelion") via Latin "Evangelium", as used in the canonical titles of the four Gospels, authored by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (also known as the Four Evangelists). (from wikipedia)

Atheistic evangelism is a contradiction in terms.

Posted by: drdrA | February 17, 2009 7:14 PM

I am a scientist and a Catholic and I do not see a conflict
between science and religion. This is not because I am
compartmentalizing aspects of my life, keeping my illogical
side away from my logical. It is because the two deal with
different aspects of the reality that I know and experience. I
can understand why some see an apparent conflict. It does
sound absolutely crazy to say that I really believe that bread
becomes the actual body of Christ. It is very difficult to try
to explain how and why I believe this, but I think that in such
a discussion as this, it is unfair to those who are truly
curious about how this works to not make an effort to do so.
So I'd like to make an attempt here. I apologize if this is
not helpful. And I'd like to add that I speak only for myself
here. I'm sure other people's experience with faith and
religion look different.

As a physicist, I decided to try to tackle this problem in the
usual physicist style: attempt to reduce the problem to more
simple components and hope that they will retain some semblance
of the actual reality. If you learn something from your simple
model, you know you've succeeded.

My faith has developed and continues to develop from many
experiences I have had throughout my life. Here is a very
simplified version of an experience I have had that I hope will
exemplify what this is about.

The setting: A polluted, sewage filled ravine in Mexico,
around which a community of very poor people live. A group of
well-off college kids from a fancy private school, myself
included, is gathered outside the home of an older man, a
member of this community, who has become, over the years, one
of its leaders. We listen to him talk of the suffering, his
fight against the injustice of society, and his own personal
hardships.

The question: Someone asks him, "Being surrounded by so much
suffering, how do you maintain your faith in God?"

His answer: "I know that God exists because a tiny seed can
grow to become a watermelon. This is a miracle."

My response: I think I probably smiled, and I know that my
first thoughts were something along the lines of "Well, that's
pretty cute. A pleasant notion, really. But if he had had
educational opportunities he probably would see how it sounds a
little silly. This is certainly not an idea that is helpful
for me."

But then, for some reason, I left behind my own personal view
of the world, a view that included the notion that there is a
perfectly good scientific description of how a seed becomes a
watermelon and therefore it can't be used as evidence for the
existence of God. Once I was free of this, then I was able to
see more. For a fleeting moment, I felt the magnitude of what
he was saying, and I sensed the reality of the seed and
watermelon as something greater than something that can be
contained in a scientific explanation, or an artistic rendition,
or even a description with language.

The seed and the watermelon as proof for God's existence sounds
ridiculous. I will not deny this. But by choosing to let go of
this constraint for a moment, I can instead contemplate what it
could possibly mean and I have found that this kind of openness has led
me along some very interesting spiritual paths. An important
point is that even in doing so, the scientific explanation of
the seed and the watermelon, or of anything else, stays intact.
The science remains just as interesting, and beautiful, and
factual as before.

This is just one little story. My faith has developed from
little experiences like this, some bigger, some smaller, and
has evolved to lead me to be a member of the Catholic church.
I won't claim that my belief in Catholic doctrine can be
understood based on this little story, but I do hope that it
has illuminated, even if just a little bit, what it is that
faith and religion are about.

Posted by: anne | February 17, 2009 7:56 PM

I have many joyous feelings about the universe in general and my own tiny little speck of an existence in particular, and the specks of existence around me sharing the universe with me. I don't always need answers with a 99% confidence interval and to the 3rd significant figure. If that sounds like "being spiritual" to other people, I have no problem with that. Just like "having faith" often means giving up a need to control things, and just seeing what happens next, then sure, I often "have faith".

I'm just often puzzled by the specifics of the various religions. Well, I can see how they might arise out of various local cultural practices and help with feeling of group identity. But linking feelings of wonder at the universe and life and family to the Eucharist wafer (for example), but not to elephant-headed gods (for example) is where I stop being able to follow. Why did Jehovah wait nearly 4.2 billion years before incarnating himself as human to save homo sapiens from the sins of two entities often regarded as metaphors?

Mousegirl, I respect your courage. Please keep posting. You are bringing understanding to at least one reader, here.

Posted by: Neuro | February 17, 2009 8:12 PM

#81 asks if I could hint at things that can't be explained in scientific terms and thus require faith.

Well, I'll try.
Scientific answers and faith-based answers are qualitatively different, so they frequently apply to different types of questions.
In general, I apply faith to "why" questions more often than "how" questions. "How does X happen?" is much easier to answer mechanistically with scientific logic than the "why does X happen?" questions that faith presents, which demand a reason or purpose for things that happen.
For example:
"How did the universe come into being?" (which has a logical, scientific, theoretical explanation that does not rule out God) versus "Why did the universe come into being?". The second question requires faith to provide at least part of the explanation, at least to me.

More concretely, I'm referring to my own life events. For instance, my husband and I were not yet married at the end of our undergraduate schooling, and prayed for guidance on which graduate schools to attend, whether we were meant to be together, etc. We each applied to our top-choice schools separately- no mention of belonging to a couple in interviews, and looking in the same region of the country but different institutions and cities. Of all the places we interviewed, only one institution had strong programs for both of our respective fields of science, so it was the only university we both applied to. That university accepted both of us, and turned out to be the best fit for each of us out of the places we were each accepted to. My now-husband and I took that result on faith as God's answer- we were supposed to be together, and we were supposed to go to graduate school at that institution. I definitely wouldn't call it a miracle because it didn't defy the laws of physics (or even statistical probability). Instead, because I believe God cares about me and is involved in my life (both part of my faith), I conclude that He guided those major life decisions for me.

Hopefully that's what you were looking for. Faith frequently provides the reason, purpose, or meaning behind questions/situations/experiences I have. I think Isis at one point compared it to a lens that things are viewed through, and I think that's an appropriate analogy. I realize that's a highly subjective answer, but that's the best I can do for now.

Posted by: mousegirl | February 17, 2009 11:40 PM

If you will forgive a minor diversion from the more concrete issues of religion, science, and sexism in both (which are more of a serious discussion than I feel like engaging in right now in the medium of blog comments), I feel like commenting on some of the doctrinal issues you mentioned.

With regard to the doctrines of transubstantiation and Apostolic Succession, they are not uniquely Catholic. They are also held by the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, and so believing in both doctrines would not necessitate that one be Catholic (it would, however, necessitate that one not be Protestant - one could believe in Apostolic Succession and be Anglican, but they believe in consubstantiation): Papal Primacy (and especially Infallibility) and the understanding of Original Sin are the most significant uniquely Catholic doctrines. The differences on Original Sin are complicated, but Catholics believe that humans inherit the guilt for the actions of Adam and Eve while still possessing free will to do good, whereas Protestants believe that people are totally depraved and cannot (without God) do good, and the Orthodox believe that human nature changed by the actions of Adam and Eve, but that this does not entail the inheritance of guilt for those actions and humans can still choose to do good. This leads to different views on the issue of Divine Grace and the role of humanity in receiving it. It's all Saint Augustine's fault (Catholics and Protestants accept his views but interpret them differently - the Orthodox think he was wrong).

I won't even get into the Filioque clause, but I think that's been resolved anyhow. In any case, the role of the Pope is probably the simplest issue for reckoning one's Catholicism.

Posted by: I'm not giving my name to a machine | February 18, 2009 1:57 AM

About mousegirl #79, Carl Sagan famously referred to science as 'The Demon Haunted World'*. He could have use 'The Demon/Ghost/God/Miracles/Inconsistencies, And Why Not Paradoxes, Haunted World', but it would have made too long of a title. As humans we can get along, coexist, move on, ignore, let pass, even accept paradoxes or any other weird thing we find along. As scientists is an invitation to discussion, deliberation, investigation, analysis, and discovering. You shouldn't miss those opportunities.

* If you haven't read this book make you a favor, go to the library and get it. Also, 'Pale Blue Dot' is as close as it gets to a completely secular 'religious' experience in book format.

Posted by: Im curious | February 18, 2009 5:44 AM

... my point being that instead of shoe-horning a omni-benevolent god into a world in which there is 'evil', one should maybe consider the more parsimonious option: that god/s (if it/they exist) is/are not omni-benevolent.

Or, indeed, not omnipotent. Or not omniscient. This would be, of course, to alter the theory of tri-omni theism in the face of the evidence against it. That makes my point that theism is not by itself "unfalsifiable". It only becomes unfalsifiable in the hands of a stubborn and recalcitrant theoretician who is willing to make all kinds of ad hoc adjustments to save the theory. People make religion unfalsifiable, not logic. They do it through all manner of self-deception and ad hoc adjustments to their systems of beliefs, but taken at face value most religious claims would seem to have empirical implications that can be readily tested. For example, the Catholic Church claims to have special access to knowledge of God's will by way of the pope and also that God's will is unerringly good. So, the facts concerning the moral judgment by Catholic popes should give evidence for or against these claims. They seems to me to give clear empirical evidence against these claims, given the history of ethnic cleansing and totalitarianism and the ongoing sexism and bigotry.

The analogy I was suggesting was that of course the evidence may be accommodated and the theory kept, just as the introduction of epicycles preserved the Ptolemaic model of the universe as earth centered. In apologetics, even the epicycles have epicycles.

Taken at face value the moral imperfection of our world is clear evidence against the existence of the tri-omni god conceived by philosophers in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Were I inclined toward "design inference" I would find Hume's suggestion that our world is a "first rude essay of some infant deity, who afterwards abandoned it, ashamed of his lame performance" to be, in light of the moral imperfections we readily observe, more plausible than the tri-omni theory. Along the same lines, I might be lead by design inference to speculate that the world was designed for the entertainment of an alien race of demigods with a peculiar taste for violence, suffering, and tragedy. Evolutionary theory and the mass of supporting evidence that has been gathered (not to mention explanatory consilience with chemistry by way of genetics), thankfully, has given us sufficient reason to dispense with such speculation, other than for amusement.

Posted by: jrshipley | February 18, 2009 9:03 AM

Mousegirl,

Just because you can ask a question, does not mean it has an definite answer, or that it is an appropriate question to ask (example: "Where is the beginning of a circle?"). "Why does water freeze" is a scientific question with a scientific answer. "Why did the universe come into being" is a scientific question that may or may not have an answer (there may have been a stimulus such as a big crunch that was the eventual result off the previous big bang, or the universe may have simply always existed, just as you probably believe that your god has always existed). Likewise, "purpose" questions certainly can have a scientific answer. Chlorophyll, nose hairs and life in general all have a purpose. Rocks, sound waves and light do not have a purpose. Sometimes the answer is "X does not have a purpose" and that may seem unsettling, but so is chlamydia. C'est la vie.

Posted by: jake | February 18, 2009 10:52 AM

There is a phenomena which I think is related pertaining to how humans think, and perceive communication, that of what is called the “theory of mind”. In the autism field, there are some who think that a “defect” in the ASD individual’s “theory of mind” is part of the cause for the reduce ability for such individuals to understand communication.

Some of the classic work in this was done by Uta Frith, where individuals would look at videos containing moving shapes, and the task was to describe what the moving shapes were doing in anthropomorphic terms. The data was pretty clear, that people on the autism spectrum had reduced ability to impute anthropomorphic motivations to moving shapes than did neurologically typically developing individuals.

http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/125/8/1839

However, what type of error does this “defect” cause? a type 1 error, a false positive, or a type 2 error a false negative? There are no intrinsically correct mental states for moving shapes. Moving shapes do not have mental states, any attribution of a mental state to a clearly inanimate object can only be a type 1 error, a false positive. This is not a close call. It shows that neurologically typical individuals are unable to appreciate that their attribution of mental states to moving shapes is a type 1 error. That says something about normal mental processes; that they do not always correspond to reality. Again, this is not a close call. Attributing mental states to moving shapes is clearly inappropriate anthropomorphic projection. If you are unable to appreciate this, then you have deeper problems.

I discuss a lot of this in my blog on “theory of mind vs theory of reality”.

One could easily hypothesize analogous cognitive structures, a “theory of supernatural” which imputes seemingly anomalous events to supernatural causes, a “theory of conspiracy” where all anomalous events are attributed to conspiracies, a “theory of anti-Semitism”, a “theory of hammers”, where every problem looks like a nail, a "theory of shoes" where all good things come from wearing the proper shoes. There has been no good peer reviewed study showing that wearing the proper shoes is necessary to do hot science, the anecdotes of some respected scientists not withstanding. One can do good science while subscribing to a “theory of shoes”, so long as one does not let one’s scientific judgment or technique be compromised by one’s shoe status.

Posted by: daedalus2u | February 18, 2009 12:26 PM

Great comment, daedalus. The only comment I could make would be that the idea (at least with the information given) is confounded by the instructions of the task. If my task is to describe something in terms of "x" (in this case anthropomorphism), I'm going to try and apply that criterion regardless of whether or not I would normally do so. That's a factor against the type 1 error argument. However, a similar experiment, minus the instruction of how to describe the image, would be fairly easy to imagine. I'd think an increased sample would be required to account for the diversity of discriptions you'd receive in a significant manner, but the same sort of data could likely be gleaned.

I also suspect you're right, anyway, but I had to make that point. :)

Posted by: Ranson | February 18, 2009 12:55 PM

@mousegirl #93: "To elaborate, getting into different schools could have had at least 2 interpretations:"

How about a third:

If you both ended up in different cities, but remained committed to each other during those five years (it does happen), and ended up marrying when you were again able to be together, you could have interpreted your time apart as your god testing your commitment to each other.

You see, all powerful gods can be used to explain pretty much any circumstance, however good or bad. Indeed, can you think of a situation which can't be attributed to the machinations of your god?

Do coincidences ever happen, or are they always evidence of some unseen agent?

Posted by: MH | February 18, 2009 1:08 PM

Daedalus, I was just playing. I love ya', dude. And just for the record, I'm not one of those likely to see anthropomorphic motivation in everything. Now if you'll excuse me, my blanket really wants me to curl up in it.

Posted by: CyberLizard | February 18, 2009 1:54 PM

mousegirl,

I take it then, that if there are no coincidence, one does not have free choice to do whatever; everything has an a priori purpose. Haven't you and your husband chose the school you went to or was it a predetermine outcome of your education, grades, personality?

Posted by: S. Rivlin | February 18, 2009 2:42 PM

There was a very nice blog post about an article that addressed this issue.

http://bhascience.blogspot.com/2009/02/how-religion-generates-social.html

The question of do things exist for a reason or do they just exist has pretty different answers for people depending on their religious belief status.

Just happen or happen for a reason fits the same heuristic.

Posted by: daedalus2u | February 18, 2009 4:11 PM

MH, I was speaking from a faith perspective. I've already said my faith perspective and my scientist perspective are qualitatively different, and in my opinion do not invalidate each other. So in my brain, quantum mechanics and religious beliefs can coexist. I'm not sure how to explain it in a way you can validate if you insist that one perspective invalidates the other.

Rivlin, the argument could just as easily made that my biology and socioeconomic status predetermine my education, grades, and personality. Would this be a more palatable way to explain my lack of belief in coincidences, since it doesn't involve religion?

I don't want to get started on free will because I have many more questions than answers on the subject, and my understanding of it and how it applies to my life is in near-constant flux.

Posted by: mousegirl | February 18, 2009 5:06 PM

So you can simultaneously accept as correct two mutually contradictory beliefs? Personally, I think that sounds like a recipe for cognitive dissonance, but hey, if it works for you.

Posted by: MH | February 18, 2009 5:34 PM

Very interesting and thought-provoking post, Isis. I'm sorry that I don't have the time to go through all 108 comments, my goodness, people have things to say.

I like the parallel you draw between science and Catholicism in that you'd like to be an agent for change in each. It's just that Catholicism has a doctrine that dictates the exclusion of women from many theological posts. Doctrine. As in, word sent down from heaven through the ear of the pope, or what have you. And to be an agent of change against doctrine is practically like being a heretic.

There is no doctrine in science about the placement and treatment of women, and we are fortunate for that. I feel like in this instance, we have a fighting chance for being 'agents of change'.

I take no issue with you being Catholic (as I am Catholic, although not particularly practicing), and I applaud you for sticking to your guns, I just think you have your work cut out for you on that front.

Posted by: Candid Engineer | February 18, 2009 10:18 PM

The vitriolic rants against religion make me wonder if some people's parents forgot to teach them "you get more flies with honey than with vinegar".

Not only does that have nothing to do with this post (unless you think that simply asking questions is vitriolic), it's also wrong: you attract more flies with vinegar. They are attracted to the volatile acetic acid.

Of course, you attract even more flies with shit, as right-wing talk-radio hosts know.

Isis, I'm sorry that you never got chance to answer the questions your commenters politely asked. I would have been very interested in your responses.

Posted by: MH | February 19, 2009 7:25 PM

Hi Dr Isis...

I came here from a comment left at a Nature Network forum.

I'd just like to say thanks for the post. I don't have time or inclination to read all 112 comments above, so I really don't know what's been said. Arguments like this on the internets usually involve much more heat than light, but you posting this might finally encourage me to break my own promise and actually say something about faith and science on my own blog.

I'm glad you had the courage to be so honest. Thank you.

RIchard

Posted by: rpg | February 19, 2009 8:27 PM

Dr. Isis: I believe in the core tenants of the scientific method

"Tenets", btw. To slightly derail the theology to broader philosophy... what would you consider those to be? And more interesting to me, do you believe them as a primary tenet of Faith, or as Inferences held valid due to some more basic principle(s)?

(Sorry to get into this a little late, but I was distracted earlier in the week by keeping an eye on the Lynchburg antics some of Christianity's own loony brigade.)

Posted by: abb3w | February 20, 2009 12:10 PM

This (these discussions) about Faith and Science and only introduced me to a new frustration and the realization that I'm catching it from both sides
1. All too often members of my community (regular folk, most of whom are Christian (at least culturally) assume I am atheist or godless because I am scientist. A false assumption that science and spirituality conflict. I feel like I have to defend being curious & critical with beleiving in divine promise, redemption, and peace.

2. Now this, other scientists who believe that beleiving in God (or being religious in any way) makes one an inconsistent scientist. Knowing about the physical world suffices one's interest, hunger and thirst for understanding and meaning of life. As if scientific knowledge (in and of itself) is THE ULTIMATE enlightenment.

How amazingly similar the religious/anti-science people & science/anti-religious people are. Both groups seem to just snipe away at each other and at anyone who falls in the middle. The condescending tone and words from the 2 extremes is really annoying.

@S. Rivlin - you are a sniper.

Posted by: DNLee | February 20, 2009 2:26 PM

I would say that it's not so much religion that puts restrictions on what can be investigated by science but rather science itself. The process of science demands that observations happen within the material world and that those processes can be repeated. Science appears to be looking for answers to questions that address how things happen as opposed to why (read: meaning instead of causality) things happen.

Posted by: Academic | February 21, 2009 12:15 AM

Hi Dr Isis

Not sure if you're following at NN, but we've started.

Posted by: rpg | February 24, 2009 3:37 PM